Slashdot over IPv6 248
fuzzel writes "Even though Slashdot has run a number of articles about IPv6 (1|2|3) it apparently isn't reachable over IPv6 directly.
But for the people that do already have IPv6 they can use http://slashdot.org.sixxs.org and they will be automaticaly gatewayed. This trick works for most sites by simply appending .sixxs.org to the domain part of a url, eg http://www.google.com.sixxs.org, the gateway will the rewrite url's to have it appended automatically so that everything goes over IPv6. Full information is available on http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net. Oh and yes if you don't have IPv6, those domains under sixxs.org won't work :)"
I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:2, Interesting)
IPv6 today? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Damn. (Score:1, Interesting)
tbh most of the current implementations of ipv6 are slow as shit, I am hoping this is just because they are overloaded with people testing them...
There is also the small fact that IANA is still holding about 60 class A's in their reserved zones, so forgive me if I say the ipv4 address shortage is bullshit. I bring this up lots here but nobody can ever give me an answer as to why they are holding back millions of perfectly useable addresses while at the same time making us all jump through hoops to get any address space and claiming we are running out.
Re:IPv6 today? (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: i help run ipng.org.uk, a UK tunnel broker.
Why the Weird Gateway? (Score:5, Interesting)
My limited understanding of IPv6 is that you can deploy v6 addresses locally, and advertise them globally via DNS using AAAA records. You can then talk over the larger Internet using a 6-over-4 tunnel.
Assuming this is correct, why doesn't Slashdot simply advertise an AAAA record, then accept connections through a 6-over-4 tunnel (or natively, if their bandwidth provider can speak it)? What are the technical considerations preventing this from working?
Schwab
Re:Tunnel Brokers (Score:4, Interesting)
For a complete matrix of ipv6 ranges right down to a
IPv6 is like the Chicken and Egg story (Score:3, Interesting)
*) IPv6 is ready to deploy, however not much ISP's are supporting IPv6.
*) ISP's are not supporting IPv6 because there are no customers who uses it.
*) Customers aren't using IPv6 because there are no applications who uses it.
*) Software developers aren't creating software because nobody uses it.
As you can see there's a loop. The main thing is to break this loop and this project is a step in the good direction.
I'd like to encourage all ISP's to actively implement and promote IPv6. And you as 'consumer' can also promote IPv6, play with it even when you ISP doesn't support IPv6 yet (with IPv6 Tunnels for example).
Just my 2 cents.
IP6 is too complex for general acceptance. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I\'ll guess I\'ll admit it.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Several time in the 90\'s the entire Internet backbone crashed because there were simply too many routes/networks in the backbone tables. The routers didn\'t have enough memory to store them all. IPv6 was developed to help solve this problem by introducing a sort of \"super-aggregation\" scheme.
As an example, the current size of the IPv4 default free table is about 150,000 routes (or so.) The current size of the IPv6 default free table is about 400 routes. Those 400 routes represent about 2^18 more networks than the IPv6 routes do. (And that\'s generously assumming that all of the IPv4 routes represent
Thus, we can represent by far more networks with fewer prefixes in IPv6 than in IPv4. The default-free routing table is small, the backbone routers are happy, there are no more crashes due to running out of memory, AND you get all of the extra features that IPv6 provides free of charge.
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Just a question on this one. I do agree that there will be enough IP addresses that there is no need to use special local addresses. Bit i actually find it very useful. It makes it easy to see where I am located, is it behind NAT, behind a firewall or just through a proxy ?. Currenty I can figure some of this out just by looking at my IP address, but without local IP subnets, things will get more confusing.
And furthermore, i'd say the "end of NAT" is a bit too much. I find it very useful to use a NAT gateway/firewall and put insecure clients behind that. It reduces the need to think secure on the local network. I can for instance export my fileserver data rw onto 192.168 without much consern. Wouldn't wanna do that if they were all "real" IP's.
IPv6 is great and it will allow those who DONT want to be behind NAT to get a "real" IP address, but its not the end of NAT.
Modified URL format (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MacOS X and IPv6 and other OSs (Score:3, Interesting)
There is an experimental IPv6 stack for Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 (which will not install on 2 or 3), but there will never ever ever in a million billion years be a production-quality stack for Windows 2000, because of issues with people not spending $200 on XP.
XP comes with a development IPv6 stack included on the CD, and Service Pack 1 comes with a production-quality IPv6 stack. Windows 2003 will include a production-quality stack as well, as will CE XP and
As much as I disapprove of MS for not bothering to support IPv6 in 2k, and despite knowing why they did it, I still encourage people to upgrade if the choice arises, if for no other reason than you won't have to upgrade again later to support IPv6.
Oh, and write your ISPs.
--Dan